• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Schwarzenegger for President?

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Won't happen any time soon. Do you really want me running this country?
Click to expand...

Skoorb! What are you doing in P&N?

That's just what we need. Canadians running this country. :laugh:
 
Arnold seems to be somewhat Liberal in social issues but conservative on fiscal issues? Does that sound corect to you or am I just imagining things?

If that is so, I would vote for him as we definitely need some conservativism on the fiscal side. Of course, any good moderate or true conservative might do the same.
 
anything is possible. The constitution is flexible because it was meant to change to meet the needs of the times. I personally like it the way it is, but I'm sure there are some really good candidates who are foreign born.
 
You probably won't see this in your lifetime. You surely won't see it in Arnold's lifetime. I think it is quite unlikely that one could muster enough states to ratify this amendment. "Let sum furriner run the goberment?" The interesting thing about this question is that it moves us toward the South American model. We're looking for a "man on horseback" to save us.
 
We should look more into why we have not had a female or African American president before we look into ammending the constitution to support foreign born presidents.

I would not support such a constitutional ammendment for the simple reason that a foreign born person has greater ties to their homeland than a US born person has to their ancestors homeland. If we need to defend ourselves against a country I think a US born person will have fewer conflicts of interest. Avoiding the discussion of whether the actions were right, would a Japan born President have been able to drop a nuke on Japan to end WWII? Would an Afghan or Iraqi born President been able to attack their homeland? Or what about the reverse, if a President feels strongly about one side of a conflict in their homeland, would they use US troops to back that side even if it is not in the best interest of the US?

I think the restriction that the President must be born in the country makes a lot of sense for the Commander in Chief. Other offices do not have the same powers to use troops and thus it is less of an issue.
 
Originally posted by: dszd0g
I think the restriction that the President must be born in the country makes a lot of sense for the Commander in Chief. Other offices do not have the same powers to use troops and thus it is less of an issue.
Click to expand...
Napoleon?
 
Originally posted by: Engineer
Arnold seems to be somewhat Liberal in social issues but conservative on fiscal issues? Does that sound corect to you or am I just imagining things?

If that is so, I would vote for him as we definitely need some conservativism on the fiscal side. Of course, any good moderate or true conservative might do the same.
Click to expand...

Yup, that's why I like the guy. I'm a fiscal conservative (because I've studied economics) and I'm a social liberal (because I'm not a narrowminded asshole). Arnold is my kind of guy 😉
 
Not only will we not know what he is doing we wouldn't be able to understand him at the same time.....

Protein shake anyone......
 
Originally posted by: dszd0g
We should look more into why we have not had a female or African American president before we look into ammending the constitution to support foreign born presidents.

I would not support such a constitutional ammendment for the simple reason that a foreign born person has greater ties to their homeland than a US born person has to their ancestors homeland. If we need to defend ourselves against a country I think a US born person will have fewer conflicts of interest. Avoiding the discussion of whether the actions were right, would a Japan born President have been able to drop a nuke on Japan to end WWII? Would an Afghan or Iraqi born President been able to attack their homeland? Or what about the reverse, if a President feels strongly about one side of a conflict in their homeland, would they use US troops to back that side even if it is not in the best interest of the US?

I think the restriction that the President must be born in the country makes a lot of sense for the Commander in Chief. Other offices do not have the same powers to use troops and thus it is less of an issue.
Click to expand...

How is anything you said any different from what American born presidents do? They all cater to special interest groups and are essentially bought by the people who made donations. This country was built by immigrants, and any American citizen should be allowed to become president.
 
Originally posted by: raildogg
hope he doesnt become president. i dont believe hes even fit to be governor
Click to expand...

Well, you would be wrong. He's a 1000x better than Gray aka "Joe" Davis was.

I voted to oust Davis and I voted for Arnold. :thumbsup:

Yes, he is more liberal in his views on society but fiscally conservative. I think this is the perfect stance for a politician.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top